Antonio Fernandez v. 113 N. Garfield LLC
2:20-cv-05978
C.D. Cal.Jul 13, 2020Background
- Plaintiff sued under the ADA seeking injunctive relief and under California's Unruh Act seeking damages.
- The Court acknowledged it has supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- California adopted stricter pleading rules for construction-access Unruh claims (verified complaints identifying specific barriers and dates) and created a "high-frequency litigant" fee to curb abusive filings.
- District courts in California have sometimes declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claims on comity and fairness grounds to avoid circumventing state reforms (e.g., Schutza v. Cuddeback).
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to: (1) state the amount of statutory damages sought, and (2) file declarations under penalty of perjury with facts necessary to determine whether Plaintiff or counsel qualify as a "high-frequency litigant."
- Plaintiff was ordered to respond by July 23, 2020; failing to timely or adequate ly respond may lead the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the Unruh Act claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim | Fernandez implicitly seeks federal resolution of state-law damages alongside his ADA claim | No substantive opposition in record; court noted California interests counsel against exercising jurisdiction | Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction and warned it may decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) |
| Whether Plaintiff must identify the amount of statutory damages sought | Fernandez must disclose the damages sought to inform jurisdictional/comity analysis | Not asserted; court requires the information regardless | Court directed Plaintiff to identify the statutory damages amount in the response |
| Whether Plaintiff/counsel meet California's “high-frequency litigant” definition and must provide supporting declarations | Fernandez must submit declarations under penalty of perjury with facts necessary for the court to determine high-frequency status | No opposing factual showing in record | Court required sworn declarations addressing the high-frequency litigant criteria from Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.55(b) |
| Consequences of failing to respond to the OSC | Fernandez risks losing the Unruh claim in federal court if he does not justify jurisdiction | Defendant silent; court emphasized comity and state policy reasons to decline jurisdiction | Failure to timely/adequately respond may result in the court declining supplemental jurisdiction and dismissing the Unruh Act claim under § 1367(c) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997) (federal courts must weigh judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity when exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (1988) (same comity and discretion principles informing supplemental-jurisdiction decisions)
- Schutza v. Cuddeback, 262 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (declined supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh claim to avoid allowing plaintiff to bypass California's heightened pleading requirements)